This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

You are making comments on the contents of a press conference you obviously didn't watch as if you watched it and have an informed opinion. You don't. Anyone who took the time to watch the press conference can sniff that out in a second. "No questions and answers.. no content"?! Give me a break, Tres.

HAHAHAH!!! "I watched the whole press conference! Let me prove it to you by giving details of the press conference I could have derived from a photograph!" Are you sure your head wasn't stuck in a hair dryer the whole time?

"No questions and answers.. no content"?!

Why do you have that in quotes when you're posting to me? When exactly did I say that? I'll wait.

Oh brother, as to your second comment. I said I watched it. I did. No photographs necessary. You're calling me a liar. And no, you don't have your head in a hair dryer at a nail salon. Stop embarrassing yourself, please.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

After Trump dismissed CNN, the next question was on the Russian sanctions. Then there was a Trumpian diatribe on Lindsey Graham. And only then did BBC broach the question, where they were summarily belittled by Trump and the question was sidestepped without direct response. The question was never answered, as I earlier stated.

If you'd like to familiarize yourself more accurately with these events, I'm happy to include here the transcript of the press conference:

So there was no avoidance of the question, just a slap down of CNN for running with a horribly inaccurate story.

Also you and Trump are attempting to conflate CNN's reporting of the two page intel briefing addendum, with the buzzfeed thirty-five page document. These are two different things, Trump knows it. I know it. And I believe you know it, or should know it.

CNN was careful and dillegent to only report the U.S. intel memo (which Trump did not refute at the presser when asked), and to also declare the Buzzfeed document as unsubstantiated. CNN did not publish the Buzzfeed document.

I believe my sources above to be accurate, but am willing to look at your yours if you'd would like.

"The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump."

and later...

"The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton."

The entire basis of that article revolves around a CIA 2-page summary of the 35 page oppo report that has been thoroughly debunked, and has been shown by NBC to have been incorrectly reported by CNN. The 35 page memo was not a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump, it was a oppo report written by a former MI6 member and paid for by Nevertrumpers and Democrats... nowhere and in no way is that a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump. In fact, the CIA, according to NBC, only presented the synopsis as an FYI for Trump to know the kind of disinformation that is out there which totally destroys the CNN narrative.

Last edited by jmotivator; 01-11-17 at 03:09 PM.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Apparently I can't respond to others about you when asked without sending you into a tizzy. There are plenty of people on this board who don't support Trump and don't take it personally when I disagree with them. In YOUR defense, frankly, I'm having a ****ty day today. So maybe your post just hit me wrong.

Block. Don't block. I don't care. Now you may have the last word if you choose or one or both of us will be infracted. JMVHO.

I have no idea why I would be infracted. I haven't made any posts that are breaking any rules. I'm calling it as I see it. You sought me out in this thread. I didn't make any comments on what you posted. You said I was disingenuous and blindly partisan, and neither one of them is true. I'm sorry you're having a bad day but you shouldn't take it out on me. If you found his presser to be wonderful, that's fine. It's your opinion. I found much of his presser to be absurd, and I posted the reasons why. He had a chance to say good things without telling us how he will be the biggest job creator in history, and so forth. I didn't like Obama's arrogance either. I prefer men who are humble and whose actions speak for him, not a man who bloviates about things that have not even happened yet. And that's why I think his presser was a flop. That's my prerogative.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

Evidence isn't the bottleneck here, it's whether or not anyone actually cares. We have all manners of acts committed by Trump that would be considered disqualifying for the office of the Presidency, but Republicans don't care, ergo they don't matter.

Well, of course they matter. I just mean that Republicans won't be credible partners in those discussions.

That's because liberal attacks on him have been so widespread, frantic and relentless that its hard to take any of them seriously. The legitimate questions are being drowned out by nonsense.

My point is, bear with me, you're going to be crabby, -- you really can't KNOW the answer to that question, right? You might say, "I don't think so," but that's not going to fly on Trump's question. You could say "Not to my knowledge," but that would easily be criticized by an unfriendly press.

How could DT have answered that question that would have made you comfortable? Is there anything he could have said? Remember, he can't answer, "Absolutely not," just as you couldn't with the question I asked you. I'm just being curious.

I watched that whole conference EXCEPT for the very last when I got a phone call. I should find it on line.

Seriously, don't you believe that if ANY evidence existed to link Trump with Russian intelligence, The government would have linked that out and the whole world would know. This is just more attempts to discredit the vote that people put into this man to run this country. It didn't work and it is not going to work.

Of course it won't work, there is no mechanism for overturning an election. So that leaves the fact that there are legitimate questions that will be asked of Trump and of course it means that any actions he takes will be scrutinized to see if he is influenced by Putin. He just needs to be very careful not to make the appearance of being Putins' patsy. Is that so hard? For example he cannot remove the sanctions on Russia unless Putin with draws from Crimea and returns it to the Ukraine

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
- Voltaire

So there was no avoidance of the question, just a slap down of CNN for running with a horribly inaccurate story.

"The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump."

and later...

"The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton."

The entire basis of that article revolves around a CIA 2-page summary of the 35 page oppo report that has been thoroughly debunked, and has been shown by NBC to have been incorrectly reported by CNN. The 35 page memo was not a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump, it was a oppo report written by a former MI6 member and paid for by Nevertrumpers and Democrats... nowhere and in no way is that a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump. In fact, the CIA, according to NBC, only presented the synopsis as an FYI for Trump to know the kind of disinformation that is out there which totally destroys the CNN narrative.

I can't speak to this guy's Tweet, but there was no response I see to the question in the transcript, at least none "immediately" as you stated. Maybe you can find it; all I see is sidstepping.

As to the CNN article, you missed a critical paragraph:

"CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos have since been published by Buzzfeed. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos."

That seems pretty accurate to me.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

I watched the entire presser as I was getting my nails done at 11:00 ET this morning. The salon had ABC on. They pre-empted The View. They had that young guy, Jonathan something or other, with the glasses, standing in front of the podium before Trump came out. Trump stood on the left side of the stage, between his daughter and one of his sons. She was wearing a white dress and they periodically whispered to each other. Shall I go on?